Borgata finds counterfeit 5k chips in WPO #1-Cncls event-Arrest made-Lawsuit filed-*RULING OUT*
01-25-2014
, 10:10 PM
I'd say the burden of proof is going to be on Borgata to prove they were no fake chips, but it wont come to that because of simple math. rough estimates on my part but close enough for my point.
~ 2500 unique entries
~ 2250 didn't cash and have a claim
~ some group of those will clearly be in tourney after chips were known to be in play. lets say 50%.
~ 1,125 players are in limbo where maybe the fake chips were in play and maybe not
1,125 * $560 = $635,625 is estimate of their exposure that might be in dispute.
others can fine tune the math if you want, but the point will be the same...
Borgata;s decision is something around $600,000 or class action lawsuit + horrible PR + damaged brand at least in Poker world and maybe more
You be the Borgata CEO, whats the call? They are one the best brands in Poker, and the best Casino brand in AC, I doubt that a company with Borgata;s brand and reputation is going to risk damaging that over ~600K
.
Point of reference Borgata Total Casino Win for Dec was $44,000,000. that's not profit but total win, akin to top line revenue in a non casino world.
Finally the decision might not even be theirs to make. DGE will have some say on that. Regardless what DGE says, I believe Borgata will do the right thing.
If for some reason they don't, I predict PokerStars will step in pay the players as nothing more than sign of good will
They already have 800M invested in good will, whats another 600K?
Quote:
It's a sculpture of limitations.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iq8gfaFqFpI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iq8gfaFqFpI
Jerry. turned out to be very very bad man
also..."one in the same" vs the correct "one and the same" I learned tonight. thanks to Professor Bobo
NVG just keeps on delivering !!!
Last edited by PTLou; 01-25-2014 at 10:22 PM.
01-25-2014
, 11:10 PM
01-25-2014
, 11:10 PM
In absence of nothing better to do I am going to make me a post here that will be tl;dr to 99% in NVG, but IDGAS.
You seem to be pretty sure the odd colored chip is fake and part of the T1mm+ of fakes.
But them you seem to recant...
TeamEdwards, Who are your sources? If there were only 4 of these in play, can we not deduce that that 200 chips that were introduced were NOT spray painted looking, so therefore much harder to spot, even perhaps nearly impossible because Borgata had 3 different sets in play? Therefore, the reports of Borgata being unaware until being contacted by Harrah's would make sense.
We can surmise this not only from your "source", but also from the discovery of this ALIBABA listing that most assuredly has no spray paint look, but are actually scary because the quality is so high (In fact, based on hundreds of similar products, these chips in the listing could be manufactured by the official maker of PCA chips and siphoned off to the ALIBABA gray-market)
Let's address this photo:
As I touched on above, I find it much more likely that those are not the spray painted chips. I believe that photo only reflects the nuances that would appear in a photo from a tournament that is using three separate, distinctive chip sets of various age and appearance.
I could be wrong but I can't see someone having so many spray painted chips without other players noticing.
In fact, and I don't mean to call him out, but TeamEdwards guy may multiple posts and tweets about passing around the weird chip and it being taken out of play. Ask yourself, would YOU pass around a chip as being so bizarre and ****ed up if they guy you won it from had dozens in his stack? TeamEdwards guy, was that not your photo as well?
You were at his table. You are suggesting that the ONLY spray painted chip to hit the felt from that big stack was so odd that it was passed around and taken out of play. This would suggest that not even a single other chip in that stack being classified as counterfeit by everyone ever hit the table before or after that? How do you introduce 200+ spray paint chips but only splash a single one into a pot?
Clearly, your source was right - there were only a few of those silver chips and therefore the photograph of his stack being cited as proof is not irrelevant to the 200+ counterfeit chips. If those were silver chips you would have looked like a dummy for passing yours around the table and having it removed from play.
I think you need to address this either by stating your source or explaining why you passed a chip around that was so prevalent in his stack and at your table. Please clarify.
Does this mean they are not incompetent as so many have suggested? ex.
Well, they were not have been incompetent visually if indeed the counterfeits were not the spray-painted grey chips.
Digital photos are notorious for completely distorting subtle lighting differences that occur in the spectum between what our eye sees and what the camera photographs. The best way to see this is for you to take a coin out of your pocket and snap a digital pic. You will never get an accurate portrayal of the REAL, 100% unadulterated human eye match unless you have a $4,000 cam and 10 years experience.
Caveat/pre-excuse just in case ---> This entire post is based on the assumption that the silver chips numbered only a few AND that the plethora of colors in the photo of his stack are based on 3 sets being in play, not on them being fakes.
Regarding Borgota Staff -Were they incompetent by not realizing the final counts did not match the total that should have been in play? I don't think so because I have personally never seen players held hostage until all bag and tags were completed and reconciled. That is totally impractical, obviously.
Even overnight reconciliation would be ineffective in a tournament with re-entries and huge fields because the certainty of human error in the bag and tag is 100%. With all the human error involved with several hundred players bagging and tagging and moving on to the next day, what if an overnight reconciliation was not perfect? Do you suspend play the next day while security reviews every bag and tag and handwriting experts debate questionable entries on the bags?
Of course not! The event can't pause while hanging chad type debates and issues are resolved. Factor in the press release that stated the chips were introduced gradually. Do we know what the actual variance was the first day? Was the difference even consequential considering the field size at that point?
Lets step forward a day or two where many would believe a proper count would have been manageable. At this point, there is still possibly human error from many sources that still include bag tag errors, cashier errors on buy-in audits, floor errors resulting from re-entry accounting etc. So it all boils down to variance.
I spent nearly two decades as a bank analyst and have dissected the inefficiencies from human error to derive specific formulas for allowed variance. When you have 10,000 tellers, you need to find the optimal point that falls between human error and human bad intentions or incompetence. When theft or incompetence is in play, IMMEDIATE second steps are triggered to investigate further.
These investigative steps represent complete, incremental costs, so therefore the variance allowed needs to be as optimal as possible. A teller +/- even $0.01 of the tolerated variance percentage has been determined needy of further action, based on sound statistical study (i.e. there is NO variance allowed on the allowed variance). Further action occurrences are not only incremental labor and actual lost $ costs that can heavily effect profitability, further actions also introduce other negative factors such as system inefficiencies.
However, there is a *seemed* non-financial impact of setting optimal, allowed variances. That impact is stakeholder (tellers) fear and uncertainties rise to the level that they are so afraid of losing their job, they triple count the $.037 in coinage every time someone cashes a check. And who could blame them?
That's why we need to find a place that is optimal and humane. Interestingly, this perceived, non-financial impact is, by far, the largest financial impact of all. Not allowing for human errors - and thus variance - has over a dozen real, always adverse financial consequences. What's near the top of that list of costs?
Employee turnover resulting from firings based on inaccurate assumptions of employee intent, resignation/rehire costs due to stressful working environment and even system payroll inefficiencies caused by employees arriving earlier and staying later caused by the stifling need to quadruple count their drawers in and out each day since the repercussions of inaccuracies are too severe. If all the tellers go from a double count in/out to a quadruple count, and you multiply the on-the-clock labor cost increase by 10,000 tellers then the banking business is no longer a viable OR desirable business model.
But without a doubt, the top financial impact on the seemed non-financial impact dirty-dozen list can be best described by going back to the $0.037 triple coin count to the customer cashing his check.
Very quickly - sometimes after only once occurrence - this customer is G-O-N-E and will never return again.
This can be directly tied back to live, MTT tournament industry. If you demand the benefits of zero variance, then plan on staying 2 hours after you bag and tag, and plan on checking the casino website to see if next day action will start on time (or even it will start at all) because the overnight accountant and security armies have discovered a discrepancy that needs further investigating. Oh, and plan on paying 100% juice to staff those armies.
MTT tournaments therefore must allow variance for the industry to survive. I contend that the 1% actual variance at WPO #1 is completely acceptable for MTT events of this size and re-entry feature. I can therefore comfortably state that there is no blame or liability that the poker world could level against Borgota.
If you disagree, all I can say is be careful what you wish for.
Quote:
What a strange coincidence, the chip on the right of my now infamous chip picture was a fake. I snapped the picture of the guy I got it from. This person coincidently busted me from the event calling off 29bb pre with 88 and winning the flip. After busting, I tweeted from @7thecho about the incident. Odds have to be astronomical.
But them you seem to recant...
Quote:
My sources said there were only 4 of the super chromed looking Home Depot chips. My guess is to divert attention away from his fake Chinese knock offs. As far as free rolls from the top 27... As nice as this sounds, this is not what I am after. I wish this guy didn't call me all the way down to bust my 66bb to 10bb with 10s on the sickest board but it makes sense now. After building my chips back to 36bb he finished me off cold calling my 4 bet with 88s. He won the flip of course and I busted 389th for peanuts. So yes, all of that sucks! But I feel awful knowing my picture could prevent some good people from getting to finish this TOURNAMENT.
I do appreciate all the positive responses, and I already received a 10 point infraction by posting that I wanted this guy to slip and fall, so I can't even do that. Violated rules that I can't even find on my mobile app. However now that I know this is the guy that busted me, Im willing to take another 10 points in hopes he slips in prison!!
I do appreciate all the positive responses, and I already received a 10 point infraction by posting that I wanted this guy to slip and fall, so I can't even do that. Violated rules that I can't even find on my mobile app. However now that I know this is the guy that busted me, Im willing to take another 10 points in hopes he slips in prison!!
We can surmise this not only from your "source", but also from the discovery of this ALIBABA listing that most assuredly has no spray paint look, but are actually scary because the quality is so high (In fact, based on hundreds of similar products, these chips in the listing could be manufactured by the official maker of PCA chips and siphoned off to the ALIBABA gray-market)
Let's address this photo:
As I touched on above, I find it much more likely that those are not the spray painted chips. I believe that photo only reflects the nuances that would appear in a photo from a tournament that is using three separate, distinctive chip sets of various age and appearance.
I could be wrong but I can't see someone having so many spray painted chips without other players noticing.
In fact, and I don't mean to call him out, but TeamEdwards guy may multiple posts and tweets about passing around the weird chip and it being taken out of play. Ask yourself, would YOU pass around a chip as being so bizarre and ****ed up if they guy you won it from had dozens in his stack? TeamEdwards guy, was that not your photo as well?
You were at his table. You are suggesting that the ONLY spray painted chip to hit the felt from that big stack was so odd that it was passed around and taken out of play. This would suggest that not even a single other chip in that stack being classified as counterfeit by everyone ever hit the table before or after that? How do you introduce 200+ spray paint chips but only splash a single one into a pot?
Clearly, your source was right - there were only a few of those silver chips and therefore the photograph of his stack being cited as proof is not irrelevant to the 200+ counterfeit chips. If those were silver chips you would have looked like a dummy for passing yours around the table and having it removed from play.
I think you need to address this either by stating your source or explaining why you passed a chip around that was so prevalent in his stack and at your table. Please clarify.
Does this mean they are not incompetent as so many have suggested? ex.
Caveat/pre-excuse just in case ---> This entire post is based on the assumption that the silver chips numbered only a few AND that the plethora of colors in the photo of his stack are based on 3 sets being in play, not on them being fakes.
Regarding Borgota Staff -Were they incompetent by not realizing the final counts did not match the total that should have been in play? I don't think so because I have personally never seen players held hostage until all bag and tags were completed and reconciled. That is totally impractical, obviously.
Even overnight reconciliation would be ineffective in a tournament with re-entries and huge fields because the certainty of human error in the bag and tag is 100%. With all the human error involved with several hundred players bagging and tagging and moving on to the next day, what if an overnight reconciliation was not perfect? Do you suspend play the next day while security reviews every bag and tag and handwriting experts debate questionable entries on the bags?
Of course not! The event can't pause while hanging chad type debates and issues are resolved. Factor in the press release that stated the chips were introduced gradually. Do we know what the actual variance was the first day? Was the difference even consequential considering the field size at that point?
Lets step forward a day or two where many would believe a proper count would have been manageable. At this point, there is still possibly human error from many sources that still include bag tag errors, cashier errors on buy-in audits, floor errors resulting from re-entry accounting etc. So it all boils down to variance.
I spent nearly two decades as a bank analyst and have dissected the inefficiencies from human error to derive specific formulas for allowed variance. When you have 10,000 tellers, you need to find the optimal point that falls between human error and human bad intentions or incompetence. When theft or incompetence is in play, IMMEDIATE second steps are triggered to investigate further.
These investigative steps represent complete, incremental costs, so therefore the variance allowed needs to be as optimal as possible. A teller +/- even $0.01 of the tolerated variance percentage has been determined needy of further action, based on sound statistical study (i.e. there is NO variance allowed on the allowed variance). Further action occurrences are not only incremental labor and actual lost $ costs that can heavily effect profitability, further actions also introduce other negative factors such as system inefficiencies.
However, there is a *seemed* non-financial impact of setting optimal, allowed variances. That impact is stakeholder (tellers) fear and uncertainties rise to the level that they are so afraid of losing their job, they triple count the $.037 in coinage every time someone cashes a check. And who could blame them?
That's why we need to find a place that is optimal and humane. Interestingly, this perceived, non-financial impact is, by far, the largest financial impact of all. Not allowing for human errors - and thus variance - has over a dozen real, always adverse financial consequences. What's near the top of that list of costs?
Employee turnover resulting from firings based on inaccurate assumptions of employee intent, resignation/rehire costs due to stressful working environment and even system payroll inefficiencies caused by employees arriving earlier and staying later caused by the stifling need to quadruple count their drawers in and out each day since the repercussions of inaccuracies are too severe. If all the tellers go from a double count in/out to a quadruple count, and you multiply the on-the-clock labor cost increase by 10,000 tellers then the banking business is no longer a viable OR desirable business model.
But without a doubt, the top financial impact on the seemed non-financial impact dirty-dozen list can be best described by going back to the $0.037 triple coin count to the customer cashing his check.
Very quickly - sometimes after only once occurrence - this customer is G-O-N-E and will never return again.
This can be directly tied back to live, MTT tournament industry. If you demand the benefits of zero variance, then plan on staying 2 hours after you bag and tag, and plan on checking the casino website to see if next day action will start on time (or even it will start at all) because the overnight accountant and security armies have discovered a discrepancy that needs further investigating. Oh, and plan on paying 100% juice to staff those armies.
MTT tournaments therefore must allow variance for the industry to survive. I contend that the 1% actual variance at WPO #1 is completely acceptable for MTT events of this size and re-entry feature. I can therefore comfortably state that there is no blame or liability that the poker world could level against Borgota.
If you disagree, all I can say is be careful what you wish for.
01-25-2014
, 11:17 PM
Quote:
In absence of nothing better to do I am going to make me a post here that will be tl;dr to 99% in NVG, but IDGAS.
You seem to be pretty sure the odd colored chip is fake and part of the T1mm+ of fakes.
But them you seem to recant...
TeamEdwards, Who are your sources? If there were only 4 of these in play, can we not deduce that that 200 chips that were introduced were NOT spray painted looking, so therefore much harder to spot, even perhaps nearly impossible because Borgata had 3 different sets in play? Therefore, the reports of Borgata being unaware until being contacted by Harrah's would make sense.
We can surmise this not only from your "source", but also from the discovery of this ALIBABA listing that most assuredly has no spray paint look, but are actually scary because the quality is so high (In fact, based on hundreds of similar products, these chips in the listing could be manufactured by the official maker of PCA chips and siphoned off to the ALIBABA gray-market)
Let's address this photo:
As I touched on above, I find it much more likely that those are not the spray painted chips. I believe that photo only reflects the nuances that would appear in a photo from a tournament that is using three separate, distinctive chip sets of various age and appearance.
I could be wrong but I can't see someone having so many spray painted chips without other players noticing.
In fact, and I don't mean to call him out, but TeamEdwards guy may multiple posts and tweets about passing around the weird chip and it being taken out of play. Ask yourself, would YOU pass around a chip as being so bizarre and ****ed up if they guy you won it from had dozens in his stack? TeamEdwards guy, was that not your photo as well?
You were at his table. You are suggesting that the ONLY spray painted chip to hit the felt from that big stack was so odd that it was passed around and taken out of play. This would suggest that not even a single other chip in that stack being classified as counterfeit by everyone ever hit the table before or after that? How do you introduce 200+ spray paint chips but only splash a single one into a pot?
Clearly, your source was right - there were only a few of those silver chips and therefore the photograph of his stack being cited as proof is not irrelevant to the 200+ counterfeit chips. If those were silver chips you would have looked like a dummy for passing yours around the table and having it removed from play.
I think you need to address this either by stating your source or explaining why you passed a chip around that was so prevalent in his stack and at your table. Please clarify.
Does this mean they are not incompetent as so many have suggested? ex.
Well, they were not have been incompetent visually if indeed the counterfeits were not the spray-painted grey chips.
Digital photos are notorious for completely distorting subtle lighting differences that occur in the spectum between what our eye sees and what the camera photographs. The best way to see this is for you to take a coin out of your pocket and snap a digital pic. You will never get an accurate portrayal of the REAL, 100% unadulterated human eye match unless you have a $4,000 cam and 10 years experience.
Caveat/pre-excuse just in case ---> This entire post is based on the assumption that the silver chips numbered only a few AND that the plethora of colors in the photo of his stack are based on 3 sets being in play, not on them being fakes.
Regarding Borgota Staff -Were they incompetent by not realizing the final counts did not match the total that should have been in play? I don't think so because I have personally never seen players held hostage until all bag and tags were completed and reconciled. That is totally impractical, obviously.
Even overnight reconciliation would be ineffective in a tournament with re-entries and huge fields because the certainty of human error in the bag and tag is 100%. With all the human error involved with several hundred players bagging and tagging and moving on to the next day, what if an overnight reconciliation was not perfect? Do you suspend play the next day while security reviews every bag and tag and handwriting experts debate questionable entries on the bags?
Of course not! The event can't pause while hanging chad type debates and issues are resolved. Factor in the press release that stated the chips were introduced gradually. Do we know what the actual variance was the first day? Was the difference even consequential considering the field size at that point?
Lets step forward a day or two where many would believe a proper count would have been manageable. At this point, there is still possibly human error from many sources that still include bag tag errors, cashier errors on buy-in audits, floor errors resulting from re-entry accounting etc. So it all boils down to variance.
I spent nearly two decades as a bank analyst and have dissected the inefficiencies from human error to derive specific formulas for allowed variance. When you have 10,000 tellers, you need to find the optimal point that falls between human error and human bad intentions or incompetence. When theft or incompetence is in play, IMMEDIATE second steps are triggered to investigate further.
These investigative steps represent complete, incremental costs, so therefore the variance allowed needs to be as optimal as possible. A teller +/- even $0.01 of the tolerated variance percentage has been determined needy of further action, based on sound statistical study (i.e. there is NO variance allowed on the allowed variance). Further action occurrences are not only incremental labor and actual lost $ costs that can heavily effect profitability, further actions also introduce other negative factors such as system inefficiencies.
However, there is a *seemed* non-financial impact of setting optimal, allowed variances. That impact is stakeholder (tellers) fear and uncertainties rise to the level that they are so afraid of losing their job, they triple count the $.037 in coinage every time someone cashes a check. And who could blame them?
That's why we need to find a place that is optimal and humane. Interestingly, this perceived, non-financial impact is, by far, the largest financial impact of all. Not allowing for human errors - and thus variance - has over a dozen real, always adverse financial consequences. What's near the top of that list of costs?
Employee turnover resulting from firings based on inaccurate assumptions of employee intent, resignation/rehire costs due to stressful working environment and even system payroll inefficiencies caused by employees arriving earlier and staying later caused by the stifling need to quadruple count their drawers in and out each day since the repercussions of inaccuracies are too severe. If all the tellers go from a double count in/out to a quadruple count, and you multiply the on-the-clock labor cost increase by 10,000 tellers then the banking business is no longer a viable OR desirable business model.
But without a doubt, the top financial impact on the seemed non-financial impact dirty-dozen list can be best described by going back to the $0.037 triple coin count to the customer cashing his check.
Very quickly - sometimes after only once occurrence - this customer is G-O-N-E and will never return again.
This can be directly tied back to live, MTT tournament industry. If you demand the benefits of zero variance, then plan on staying 2 hours after you bag and tag, and plan on checking the casino website to see if next day action will start on time (or even it will start at all) because the overnight accountant and security armies have discovered a discrepancy that needs further investigating. Oh, and plan on paying 100% juice to staff those armies.
MTT tournaments therefore must allow variance for the industry to survive. I contend that the 1% actual variance at WPO #1 is completely acceptable for MTT events of this size and re-entry feature. I can therefore comfortably state that there is no blame or liability that the poker world could level against Borgota.
If you disagree, all I can say is be careful what you wish for.
You seem to be pretty sure the odd colored chip is fake and part of the T1mm+ of fakes.
But them you seem to recant...
TeamEdwards, Who are your sources? If there were only 4 of these in play, can we not deduce that that 200 chips that were introduced were NOT spray painted looking, so therefore much harder to spot, even perhaps nearly impossible because Borgata had 3 different sets in play? Therefore, the reports of Borgata being unaware until being contacted by Harrah's would make sense.
We can surmise this not only from your "source", but also from the discovery of this ALIBABA listing that most assuredly has no spray paint look, but are actually scary because the quality is so high (In fact, based on hundreds of similar products, these chips in the listing could be manufactured by the official maker of PCA chips and siphoned off to the ALIBABA gray-market)
Let's address this photo:
As I touched on above, I find it much more likely that those are not the spray painted chips. I believe that photo only reflects the nuances that would appear in a photo from a tournament that is using three separate, distinctive chip sets of various age and appearance.
I could be wrong but I can't see someone having so many spray painted chips without other players noticing.
In fact, and I don't mean to call him out, but TeamEdwards guy may multiple posts and tweets about passing around the weird chip and it being taken out of play. Ask yourself, would YOU pass around a chip as being so bizarre and ****ed up if they guy you won it from had dozens in his stack? TeamEdwards guy, was that not your photo as well?
You were at his table. You are suggesting that the ONLY spray painted chip to hit the felt from that big stack was so odd that it was passed around and taken out of play. This would suggest that not even a single other chip in that stack being classified as counterfeit by everyone ever hit the table before or after that? How do you introduce 200+ spray paint chips but only splash a single one into a pot?
Clearly, your source was right - there were only a few of those silver chips and therefore the photograph of his stack being cited as proof is not irrelevant to the 200+ counterfeit chips. If those were silver chips you would have looked like a dummy for passing yours around the table and having it removed from play.
I think you need to address this either by stating your source or explaining why you passed a chip around that was so prevalent in his stack and at your table. Please clarify.
Does this mean they are not incompetent as so many have suggested? ex.
Well, they were not have been incompetent visually if indeed the counterfeits were not the spray-painted grey chips.
Digital photos are notorious for completely distorting subtle lighting differences that occur in the spectum between what our eye sees and what the camera photographs. The best way to see this is for you to take a coin out of your pocket and snap a digital pic. You will never get an accurate portrayal of the REAL, 100% unadulterated human eye match unless you have a $4,000 cam and 10 years experience.
Caveat/pre-excuse just in case ---> This entire post is based on the assumption that the silver chips numbered only a few AND that the plethora of colors in the photo of his stack are based on 3 sets being in play, not on them being fakes.
Regarding Borgota Staff -Were they incompetent by not realizing the final counts did not match the total that should have been in play? I don't think so because I have personally never seen players held hostage until all bag and tags were completed and reconciled. That is totally impractical, obviously.
Even overnight reconciliation would be ineffective in a tournament with re-entries and huge fields because the certainty of human error in the bag and tag is 100%. With all the human error involved with several hundred players bagging and tagging and moving on to the next day, what if an overnight reconciliation was not perfect? Do you suspend play the next day while security reviews every bag and tag and handwriting experts debate questionable entries on the bags?
Of course not! The event can't pause while hanging chad type debates and issues are resolved. Factor in the press release that stated the chips were introduced gradually. Do we know what the actual variance was the first day? Was the difference even consequential considering the field size at that point?
Lets step forward a day or two where many would believe a proper count would have been manageable. At this point, there is still possibly human error from many sources that still include bag tag errors, cashier errors on buy-in audits, floor errors resulting from re-entry accounting etc. So it all boils down to variance.
I spent nearly two decades as a bank analyst and have dissected the inefficiencies from human error to derive specific formulas for allowed variance. When you have 10,000 tellers, you need to find the optimal point that falls between human error and human bad intentions or incompetence. When theft or incompetence is in play, IMMEDIATE second steps are triggered to investigate further.
These investigative steps represent complete, incremental costs, so therefore the variance allowed needs to be as optimal as possible. A teller +/- even $0.01 of the tolerated variance percentage has been determined needy of further action, based on sound statistical study (i.e. there is NO variance allowed on the allowed variance). Further action occurrences are not only incremental labor and actual lost $ costs that can heavily effect profitability, further actions also introduce other negative factors such as system inefficiencies.
However, there is a *seemed* non-financial impact of setting optimal, allowed variances. That impact is stakeholder (tellers) fear and uncertainties rise to the level that they are so afraid of losing their job, they triple count the $.037 in coinage every time someone cashes a check. And who could blame them?
That's why we need to find a place that is optimal and humane. Interestingly, this perceived, non-financial impact is, by far, the largest financial impact of all. Not allowing for human errors - and thus variance - has over a dozen real, always adverse financial consequences. What's near the top of that list of costs?
Employee turnover resulting from firings based on inaccurate assumptions of employee intent, resignation/rehire costs due to stressful working environment and even system payroll inefficiencies caused by employees arriving earlier and staying later caused by the stifling need to quadruple count their drawers in and out each day since the repercussions of inaccuracies are too severe. If all the tellers go from a double count in/out to a quadruple count, and you multiply the on-the-clock labor cost increase by 10,000 tellers then the banking business is no longer a viable OR desirable business model.
But without a doubt, the top financial impact on the seemed non-financial impact dirty-dozen list can be best described by going back to the $0.037 triple coin count to the customer cashing his check.
Very quickly - sometimes after only once occurrence - this customer is G-O-N-E and will never return again.
This can be directly tied back to live, MTT tournament industry. If you demand the benefits of zero variance, then plan on staying 2 hours after you bag and tag, and plan on checking the casino website to see if next day action will start on time (or even it will start at all) because the overnight accountant and security armies have discovered a discrepancy that needs further investigating. Oh, and plan on paying 100% juice to staff those armies.
MTT tournaments therefore must allow variance for the industry to survive. I contend that the 1% actual variance at WPO #1 is completely acceptable for MTT events of this size and re-entry feature. I can therefore comfortably state that there is no blame or liability that the poker world could level against Borgota.
If you disagree, all I can say is be careful what you wish for.
In the vernacular, I saw you palm that card.
01-26-2014
, 01:55 AM
01-26-2014
, 01:56 AM
01-26-2014
, 04:08 AM
